1981 1 MLJ 14
T. Sathiadev, J.
M. Kandaswamy
Versus
Sowrirajan
Decided on: 29/2/1980
C.R.P. No. 56 of 1930.
T. Sathiadev, J.
1. This revision petition is filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and under Section 6(b) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 against the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector and Presiding Officer of Tiruvarur in P. No. 138 of 1979 on 5th December, 1979. The tenant is the petitioner herein against whom a petition was filed under Section 3(4) (a) of Act XXV of 1955 for evicting him for non-payment of lease rent for Fasli 1388. The Authority held that this is a case where "the tenant (intended) to drag the matter wilfully and there is no bonafide reason to grant any further time "and hence it is ordered the tenant to be evicted since he has not paid the lease rent in-spite of opportunities given Mr. Ganesan, counsel for the petitioner, contends that the refusal to grant further time beyond the two adjournments given earlier, being unreasonable, the Authority had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and hence, this Court during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition can not only take note of the subsequent payment of rent made and also hold that such a payment made pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition would tantamount to remittance of rent within the time fixed by the Authority. He also contends that failure to grant further time had res-suited in gross prejudice to the tenant resulting in. eviction and hence the order of eviction is unsound and unsustainable in law. He also relies upon the decision of this Court rendered in Mahalinga Voikkaran v. P.R.S. Sellathammal (1972) 85 L.W. 376 to contend that a Civil Revision Petition is a continuation of the petition filed under Act XXV of 1955 and therefore, this Court has ample jurisdiction to give an opportunity to the tenant to pay the arrears during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition and if such a payment is made, it would be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act and it would in turn result in setting aside the order of eviction.
2. Mr. Raman, counsel for the respondent/landlord in turn relies upon the decision rendered in Sivasankara Devarayar v. (Minor) Prakash by Guardian (1979) T.L.N.J. 290 wherein, it has been stated that where a revision can be considered as a continuation of the proceedings under Act XXV of 1955 initiated before the Revenue Court is an aspect on which there is still a grave doubt, and that there has been a compliance of the orders passed during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition cannot be taken into account for finding out whether there has been a failure to pay rent on time or not. The compliance of interim order pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition is no ground to hold that the order of the Revenue Court has been complied.
3. In this case, the preliminary order was passed on 29th October, 1979, directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 692.70 together with costs of Rs. 40 on or before 21st November, 1979. The tenant had earlier filed a vakalat through counsel on 16th August, 1979; but no enquiry could be conducted till 22nd October, 1979, and it is only thereafter, by mutual consent of the landlord and the tenant, the claim of 61 kalams was restricted to only thirty kalams for Fasli 1388. The tenant agreed to pay the value of this quantity and accordingly, an order was passed granting time till 21st November, 1979, for payment of the amount. On 21st November, 1979, the tenant paid only Rs. 150 and asked for further time of two months. But this was objected to by the landlord by stating that the properties are being distained for arrears of Land Revenue and therefore a longer time cannot be granted. This resulted in the Revenue Court fixing 5th December, 1979, as a date by which the balance of the amount was to be paid. Again on 5th December, 1979, the tenant paid only Rs. 50 and pleaded for further extension of time. On this date, the landlord stated that already his movables have been distained and that he had no money t
1. Mahalinga Voikkaran v. P.R.S. Sellathammal (1972) 85 L.W. 376
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.